The Labor enquirer., 1887-10-08

not possess. And since the gov
eminent Of the United States has
no right 70 make you kill your in
nocent fellowman. it cannot make
the act of killing him right on
your part, Your act still consti-
tutes real murder and you should
suffer any penalty to be inflicted
upon you for your refusal rather
than commit that act. Purely de-
fensive war-wa that is forced
upon US is the only kind Of war
that can ever properly justified.
Had held these views years ago
a goodly number Of brave men
might now be living who have
long since turned to dust.
From all Of this it is clear that
we are under no moral obligations
to obey bad law, a law that in
vades any of our inalienable rights
or that requires us to invade any
of the inalienable rights of an in
nocent fellowman. No one was
under any moral obligation to
obey the bad laws of the inquisi-
tion which required the burning
of heretics, infdels, scientists,
witches, etc. No one was under
any moral obligation to obey the :
bad laws of Massachusetts, which
requested the hanging of witches
and Quakers. And no one was
under any moral obligations to
obey the recent bad laws Of the
United States which required the
fugitive slave to be dragged back
to the bloody lash of the driver
and to the horrid teeth of the
bloodhounds. And so of a thou
sand other bad laws. Of the past
and the present. So far from be-
ing crime opposition to such
laws is really a meritorious act,
though it is generally one that is
at first attended with great danger.
Notwithstanding the danger how
ever we should oppose them. 1t
is only by opposing them that we
ever get rid of them. A bad law
is never repealed by its advocates.
Had the advocates of the inquisi-
ton been left to themselves they
would still be burning heretics,
scientists and others according to
the bad laws of that damnably
holy institution.
Indeed, ! will 60 farther even
than this. l will contend that we
are not under any moral obliga-
tion to obey any man-made laws
of any kind. Should our con-
gress or the legislature of our
state by some unaccountable in
advertence enact good lava
law in accordance with the eter-
nal and interchangeable laws of right
I've are under no more moral OBJ
legations because of this law to do
the right thing enjoined by it.
than we would have been without
| it. Without the law our moral
obligation to do the right thing
enjoined by it than we would have
been without it. Without the law
our moral obligation to do that
right thing would bejust as high as
it's capable Of being. A good law
enjoining the doing of that good
thing could not add anything to
this perfect obligation; nor could
a bad law forbidding the doing of
that right thing render our obi
cation to do it any the less. From
their very nature such obligations
are of necessity utterly unchang-
able. Aswell might q legislature
attempt by a majority vote to
change the physical properties Of
plants as to attempt by similar
vote to change the moral nature
of actions or to change the moral
nature of our obligations. AS well
might they attempt by such a vote
to render wheat -four a deadly
poison and strichnine wholesome
food as to attempt in the same
way to render the killing of an in
nOcent man a meriforious ,ct a,d